Some good thoughts on age-gating access to social media, from someone who worked at Facebook for some years and helped create it <https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360982163/your-kids-are-being-hurt-experts-plea-new-zealand-lawmakers-social-media-ban>: “I worked on newsfeed ranking, bullying and harassment, and comment ranking,” [Ravi] Iyer told Stuff. “What I learned was that you can't actually design a platform badly and then try to fix it through moderation. You actually have to design a platform better in the first place.” As for the idea that legal restrictions just drive young people to use VPNs or lie about their age or whatever, he points out that peer pressure is the main driver of behaviour, so it’s not necessary to have a 100% loophole-proof policy in order to see good results: Addressing concerns about teens bypassing potential legislation using virtual private networks (VPNs) or children being pushed to darker corners of the internet, Iyer argues that these are not reasons to delay action. He says norm changes—where children feel less social pressure to be on platforms—are already occurring, and the goal is not immediate 100% compliance. He compares the policy to drinking ages or speed limits, where partial compliance still yields significant social benefits. And yes, he has some ideas on how a platform can be better designed. His approach also has the benefit of singling out problem platforms, not by trying to say what is or isn’t a “social media” platform, but in terms of the specific characteristics that cause problems: Iyer suggests moving away from broad, purpose-based definitions and instead focusing on harmful features, such as engagement-based algorithms, infinite scroll, and "streak" gamification—where users are incentivised to return to the platform every day. Of course, such features are precisely those that maximize ad revenue for the platform companies. So don’t expect them to be happy about this kind of focus.